Right now 3D is "faked" it's done with two cameras right next to eachother each "polarized" differently to give the viewe with the glasses each view seperately (or at once.) For example, in Avatar's 3D one camera recorded a certain wavelength of video from its prespective and the other camera the another. These two are played at the same time and picked up seprately by the glasses translating to your brain as a "3D" image. But it's faked. It's no more 3D than, say, colorforms as the prespective on the screen doesn't change based on where the viewer sits. It's all from the "camera's" POV. If it was truely 3D you could move more to the right and see more of what's behind the guy in center frame. The presepctive and view would change from the watcher's POV. This kind of 3D is likely possible, even without glasses, but a long-way away.

The new 3D TVs work by recording the two images at once but also displaying them both at once. The glasses are part of technology by shutting one eye off and the other eye on several times a second to give a 3D-like effect. But, again, this is a "fake" 3D that gives an illusion of depth.

But the 3D used for movies has one critical component: Two side-by-side cameras. One for each of the viewer's eye. For TNG it was recoded with only one camera doing the shot. Not two side-by-side cameras.

For this to be 3D someone has, essentialy, go in with a computer, cut out all of the foreground stuff, fill in the background stuff and then make a second camera in the computer. Done "right" the effect can be good but it's more likely to look like colorforms (foreground images being placed on the screen ontop of the background) than it is any illusion of reality and depth.

This is what would have to be done to make TNG 3D. Every single frame of film -because again all of the episodes would have to be re-edited from the original film as the episodes were edited on videotape and wouldn't have sufficent resolution for HDTVs- would have to be cut into two pieces. The "foreground" and the "background." The missing background (where the foreground stuff was) would have to be filled in with CGI or other shots, then the foreground stuff would have to be-re-edited back in. Again, this would have to be done for every. Single. Frame. Of the episodes! That's 26 frames a minute for 40-some minute long episodes.

Done right, this can be a good effect but requires a lot of good, talented, CGI to make the backgrounds match the filled-in-stuff and to even give the "foreground" stuff more depth (again, to avoid the "colorform" effect.) I simply do not see how this would feasable for a 20 year old TV show that's already got a shit-tone of work that needs to be done on it to just make it viable on BD in 2D!

This is one of the problems with these new 3D TVs. They won't make everything you play on them 3D. The stuff has to of been filmed in 3D, and then released in 3D. It won't make anything played on it 3D. So, for example, you'll never see a "Ghostbusters in 3D" because Ghostbusters was never filmed in 3D. To make it 3D it'd have to be "faked" using CGI.

I believe there's some primitive glasses-less 3D technologies in the works out there. One idea I think could work is having several layers of transparent TV screens eachone displaying something slightly different and each one being a "cube" capable of showing an image on its face and side. The result being a "true" 3D image with a prespective that changes from the viewing angle.

Something like this:

The pixels being opacity being adjustable depending on what's supposed to be there, or guess just opaque when activated and being transparent when "off", that is when representing dead space/air. I'm thinking of something like 100s or 1000s of layers to give a real "depth resolution" and I think with the right prespectives a good sense of depth could be simulated.

Oh for gawd sakes, I can't see 3D in this show being of any value at all, other than raking in a few more bucks because people are curious. The whole thing is just one big gimmick, and it has absolutely no importance. I'm for them tweaking the visuals as best they can, but why go over board? They are talking about 3D now just because it's popular right now. They should just do some kind of restoration if they're going to do it, and then be done with it. And if they never get around to doing that, it's not like TNG isn't fine the way it is.

More than that, because the effects were done on video the episodes were edited on video. Whichmeans if any "HD" or higher-quality versions are ever to be made the entire episodes would have to be re-edited and cut together from the filmstock.

Click to expand...

A perfect example of how some cost-cutting measures really end up costing you more in the long run. They really blew it with this.

I wouldn't mind seeing TNG remastered (even though it would be a ton of work, take ages and cost lots of money), especially as the image quality on most of the episodes is pretty piss poor and can actually be distracting on large screens, but 3D? Who gives a shit about 3D? It's a gimmick and it adds absolutely nothing positive to the viewing experience.

More than that, because the effects were done on video the episodes were edited on video. Whichmeans if any "HD" or higher-quality versions are ever to be made the entire episodes would have to be re-edited and cut together from the filmstock.

Click to expand...

A perfect example of how some cost-cutting measures really end up costing you more in the long run. They really blew it with this.

Click to expand...

To be fair, no one in 1980s could have forseen home-video machines and TVs with resolutions as high as 1080.

I was watching TOS HD a bit recently and frankly I prefer the old effects shots. I just don't go nuts for CGI anymore. TNG had some pretty decent model work, amazing for TV. The time and money constraints were crazy. The results are worthy of admiration simply because of that.

If they do redo it all in CGI, I hope it's much better than TOS HD and better than the shot of the D on the last Ent episode. No fakey lighting. No plastic look.

And yeah the 3D fad isn't really for me. I didn't even think Avatar's 3D was all that mind blowing honestly. It's hard on the eyes. And if the production isn't filmed with it in mind it's just gonna be a hack.

I was watching TOS HD a bit recently and frankly I prefer the old effects shots. I just don't go nuts for CGI anymore. TNG had some pretty decent model work, amazing for TV. The time and money constraints were crazy. The results are worthy of admiration simply because of that.

If they do redo it all in CGI, I hope it's much better than TOS HD and better than the shot of the D on the last Ent episode. No fakey lighting. No plastic look.

And yeah the 3D fad isn't really for me. I didn't even think Avatar's 3D was all that mind blowing honestly. It's hard on the eyes. And if the production isn't filmed with it in mind it's just gonna be a hack.

Click to expand...

The FX for TOS-R were designed with the 60s in mind...I think the STNG FX will be closer conceptually to what we expect for modern FX...as in ST:Enterprise.